AW: RDF/architecture/ontology - migration

Tue Nov 22 10:46:45 CET 2005

RE: [TDWG-GUID] RDF/architecture/ontology - migrationDear all,

I hope this contribution will arrive at the mailing list, for some reasons
my last mail did't
appear ..

I would like to direct your attention to the handle.net system which
basically is what is behind
DOI. It can be found at http://www.handle .net.
Using DOI itself would cause additional expenses, not too much, but has to
be kept in mind.
In contrary by choosing the handle.net and setting up an own handle server
(or more), it would be for 'free'.

The most important thing is that DOI / handle.net offers a system to
_globally resolve_ unique identifiers!

What do I mean by global resolution? Following the discussion here I
sometimes have the impression
that it is not completely understood what GUIDs are for and global resolving
is the most important.

A nice example was currently given to me by our 'DOI guru'  here at the
WDC-MARE:
The national library of congress is using handle.net. The example has the
id: loc.music/musdi.101.
Very interesting is that you can use the DOI handle server to resolve to the
particular document the id
points to: http://dx.doi.org/loc.music/musdi.101
Other handle server would also direct to the correct location of the object:
http://www.handle.net//loc.music/musdi.101
or
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.music/musdi.101 , The handle server at the National
Library of Congress!

Try the urls and you'll see that eg. DOI and NC redirect to the correct
page. This is what this system makes
so powerful! It works similar to the DNS system which allows to globally
find the correct IP for a given
web address.

So it would not make a difference what identifying system you would choose,
either the LSID or the DOI
style or something else, as sson as it is globally unique and is handled by
handle.net, the digital
object which is behind the identifyer would be found.

I hope this helps..

best regards,

Dr. Robert Huber
WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - www.pangaea.de, www.wdc-mare.org
Stratigraphy.net - www.stratigraphy.net
_____________________________________________
MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences (location)
University Bremen
Leobener Strasse
POP 330 440
28359 Bremen
Phone ++49 421 218-65593, Fax ++49 421 218-65505
e-mail rhuber at wdc-mare.org, robert.huber at stratigraphy.net

 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project
[mailto:TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]Im Auftrag von Chuck Miller
Gesendet: Montag, 21. November 2005 22:13
An: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Betreff: Re: RDF/architecture/ontology - migration

  Do we want GUIDs that are dependent upon a specific protocol or schema?

  Seems like the ideal would be an approach that disconnects them so that
the decisions for GUIDs and for protocols and schemas can be made
separately.

  From what I've been hearing so far the GUID is embedded inside of
something else, like LSID or DOI.  That is, the unique identifier part is
wrapped inside something that is understandable only by a specific protocol
or locating mechanism.  Is this unavoidable?

  Chuck

  Chuck Miller
  Chief Information Officer
  Missouri Botanical Garden
  4344 Shaw Blvd
  St. Louis, MO 63119

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Roger Hyam [mailto:roger at TDWG.ORG]
  Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 4:40 AM
  To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
  Subject: [TDWG-GUID] RDF/architecture/ontology - migration

  This is carrying on from Steve's comments under the "Taxon debate
  synthesis?" thread. I started a new thread as it seemed to be getting a
  little deep and no longer fitting the title.

  Steve's comments are hitting the nail right on the head. From the
  conversations and thoughts I am having about architecture of TDWG
  standards all roads are leading to RDF - which is annoying because it
  makes writing balanced documents that compare the alternatives difficult
:)

  Steve outlined one of the most promising  paths forward for TDWG
  standards. Taking this route is not a matter of just saying "lets do it
  all in RDF" there would be a long way to go if we went this way - but at
  least we would be doing things the same way the rest of the semantic web
  world and that means there are tools and people out there to help.

  The one point Steve didn't stress is that RDF is the "bees knees" for
  data handshaking - i.e. combining data from different domains. This
  means that the extensibility and version problems that are our main
  hurdles as the moment will tend to go away. But have no fear there will
  be other problems to replace them.

  I am comfortable talking about GUIDs in terms of moving towards
  representing TDWG data in RDF. It certainly makes more sense of the GUID
  discussions to me. But...

  What we need to bear in mind is that there is a great deal of knowledge
  captured in  XML Schema within the TDWG community and that knowledge (or
  at least the good bits of it) need to be migrated forwards. People have
  also invested a great deal of effort in developing XML Schemas and may
  be reluctant to move on.

  This is all leading to TAG stuff rather than GUID stuff but as Steve and
  Rod and others point out the two are very closely connected - along with
  the protocol stuff...

  How much should the GUID debate assume that we are using current XML
  Schema based standards and how much should it assume a move to an RDF
  style approach - or doesn't it matter?

  Roger

  --

  -------------------------------------
   Roger Hyam
   Technical Architect
   Taxonomic Databases Working Group
  -------------------------------------
   http://www.tdwg.org
   roger at tdwg.org
   +44 1578 722782
  -------------------------------------

------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C5EF52.085D34D0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [TDWG-GUID] RDF/architecture/ontology - =
migration</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Dear=20
all,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I hope=20
this contribution will arrive at the mailing list, for some reasons my =
last mail=20
did't</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>appear=20
..</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I=20
would like to direct your attention to the handle.net system which =
basically is=20
what is behind</DIV>
<DIV>DOI.=20
It can be found at http://www.handle .net.</DIV>
<DIV>Using=20
DOI itself would =
cause additional=20
expenses, not too much, but has to be kept in mind. </DIV>
<DIV>In=20
contrary by choosing the handle.net and setting up an own handle =
<FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>server (or more), it would be for=20
'free'.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The most important =
thing is that DOI=20
/ handle.net offers a system to =
_globally=20
resolve_ unique identifiers!<SPAN=20
class=3D920422109-22112005>=20
</DIV>
<DIV> What =
do I mean by=20
global resolution?&nbsp;Following the =
discussion=20
here I sometimes have the impression </DIV>
<DIV>that=20
it is not completely understood what GUIDs are for and global resolving =
is the=20
most important.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>A nice=20
example was currently given=20
to me=20
by our 'DOI guru'&nbsp; here at the=20
WDC-MARE: </DIV>
<DIV>The national =
library of=20
congress&nbsp;is =
using&nbsp;handle.net.=20
The example has the id: loc.music/musdi.101. </DIV>
<DIV>Very interesting is =
that you can use=20
the DOI handle server to resolve to =
the=20
particular document the id </DIV>
<DIV>poi<SPAN=20
class=3D920422109-22112005>nts to: <A=20
href=3D"http://dx.doi.org/loc.music/musdi.101">http://dx.doi.org/loc.music/musdi.101</A></DIV>
<DIV>Other=20
handle server would also direct to the correct location of the object:=20
</DIV>
<DIV><A=20
href=3D"http://www.handle.net//loc.music/musdi.101">http://www.handle.net=
//loc.music/musdi.101</A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>or</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff><A=20
href=3D"http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.music/musdi.101"><FONT=20
size=3D2>http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.music/musdi.101</FONT></A><FONT=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;,&nbsp;The handle server at the National Library of=20
Congress!</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Try the url<SPAN=20
class=3D920422109-22112005>s</SPAN> and you'll see that&nbsp;<SPAN=20
class=3D920422109-22112005>eg.</SPAN> DOI&nbsp;<SPAN =
class=3D920422109-22112005>and=20
NC </SPAN>redirect to the correct page.<SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005> =

This is what this system makes </DIV>
<DIV>so powerful! It =
works similar=20
to the DNS system which allows =
to globally=20
find the correct IP for a given</DIV>
<DIV>web=20
address.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>So it=20
would not make a difference what identifying system you would choose, =
either the=20
LSID or the DOI</DIV>
<DIV>style=20
or something else, as sson as it is globally unique and is handled by=20
handle.net, the digital</DIV>
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>object which is behind the =
identifyer would be=20
found. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I hope=20
this helps..</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>best=20
regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D920422109-22112005></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN=20
class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff>Dr. Robert =
Huber<BR>WDC-MARE /=20
PANGAEA - www.pangaea.de, www.wdc-mare.org<BR>Stratigraphy.net -=20
www.stratigraphy.net<BR>_____________________________________________<BR>=
MARUM -=20
Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences (location)<BR>University=20
Bremen<BR>Leobener Strasse<BR>POP 330 440<BR>28359 Bremen<BR>Phone ++49 =
421=20
218-65593, Fax ++49 421 218-65505<BR>e-mail <A=20
href=3D"mailto:rhuber at wdc-mare.org">rhuber at wdc-mare.org</A>,=20
robert.huber at stratigraphy.net</FONT> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005></SPAN></SPAN><FONT =
face=3DTahoma><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D920422109-22112005><FONT face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D920422109-22112005></SPAN></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D920422109-22112005>&nbsp;</SPAN>-----Urspr=FCngliche=20
Nachricht-----<BR><B>Von:</B> Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID =
Project=20
[mailto:TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]<B>Im Auftrag von </B>Chuck=20
Miller<BR><B>Gesendet:</B> Montag, 21. November 2005 22:13<BR><B>An:</B> =

TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Betreff: Re: =
RDF/architecture/ontology -=20
migration </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
 Do we want GUIDs that are dependent upon a specific =
protocol=20
 or schema? 
 Seems like the ideal would be an approach that =
disconnects=20
 them so that the decisions for GUIDs and for protocols and schemas can =
be made=20
 separately.
 From what I've been hearing so far the GUID is =
embedded inside=20
 of something else, like LSID or DOI.&nbsp; That is, the unique =
identifier part=20
 is wrapped inside something that is understandable only by a specific =
protocol=20
 or locating mechanism.&nbsp; Is this unavoidable?
 Chuck 
 Chuck Miller Chief =
Information=20
 Officer Missouri Botanical Garden =
 <FONT=20
 size=3D2>4344 Shaw Blvd St. Louis, MO=20
 63119&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 -----Original Message----- From: Roger=20
 Hyam [<A href=3D"mailto:roger at TDWG.ORG">mailto:roger at TDWG.ORG</A>]=20
 Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 4:40 =
AM=20
 To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU <FONT=20
 size=3D2>Subject: [TDWG-GUID] RDF/architecture/ontology - =
migration 
 This is carrying on from Steve's comments under the =
"Taxon=20
 debate synthesis?" thread. I started a new =
thread as=20
 it seemed to be getting a little deep and no =
longer=20
 fitting the title. 
 Steve's comments are hitting the nail right on the =
head. From=20
 the conversations and thoughts I am having =
about=20
 architecture of TDWG standards all roads are =
leading=20
 to RDF - which is annoying because it makes =
writing=20
 balanced documents that compare the alternatives difficult :) =

 Steve outlined one of the most promising&nbsp; paths =
forward=20
 for TDWG standards. Taking this route is not =
a matter=20
 of just saying "lets do it all in RDF" there =
would be=20
 a long way to go if we went this way - but at least we=20
 would be doing things the same way the rest of the semantic web =

world and that means there are tools and people out =
there to=20
 help. 
 The one point Steve didn't stress is that RDF is the =
"bees=20
 knees" for data handshaking - i.e. combining =
data from=20
 different domains. This means that the =
extensibility=20
 and version problems that are our main hurdles as the=20
 moment will tend to go away. But have no fear there will =
 <FONT=20
 size=3D2>be other problems to replace them. 
 I am comfortable talking about GUIDs in terms of =
moving=20
 towards representing TDWG data in RDF. It =
certainly=20
 makes more sense of the GUID discussions to =
me.=20
 But... 
 What we need to bear in mind is that there is a =
great deal of=20
 knowledge captured in&nbsp; XML Schema =
within the TDWG=20
 community and that knowledge (or at least =
the good=20
 bits of it) need to be migrated forwards. People have <FONT =

  size=3D2>also invested a great deal of effort in developing XML =
Schemas and=20
  may</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>be reluctant to move on.</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>This is all leading to TAG stuff rather than GUID =
stuff but as=20
  Steve and</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Rod and others point out the two =
are very=20
  closely connected - along with</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>the protocol=20
  stuff...</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>How much should the GUID debate assume that we are =
using=20
  current XML</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Schema based standards and how =
much should=20
  it assume a move to an RDF</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>style approach - =
or doesn't=20
  it matter?</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Roger</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>--</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>-------------------------------------</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&nbsp;Roger Hyam</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;Technical=20
  Architect</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;Taxonomic Databases Working=20
  Group</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>-------------------------------------</FONT>=20
  <BR><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;<A href=3D"http://www.tdwg.org"=20
  target=3D_blank>http://www.tdwg.org</A></FONT> <BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&nbsp;roger at tdwg.org</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;+44 1578 =

  722782</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>-------------------------------------</FONT>=20
  </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>